Yes, but font smoothing would NOT be happening on lines drawn in illustrator or even the normal OS. Its only applied to text. OS X does smoothing of text, but in no way does smoothing of graphic objects.
You've got a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Quartz does smoothing of graphics objects. I agree though, it's probably a lemon.
Yes, but font smoothing would NOT be happening on lines drawn in illustrator or even the normal OS. Its only applied to text. OS X does smoothing of text, but in no way does smoothing of graphic objects.
You've got a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Illustrator uses vector graphics, which, by nature, are anti-aliased, so it is very possible that those graphics are also using sub-pixel rendering.
The display sounds normal to me, the user just isn't used to the way an LCD looks. Adjusting the level of anti-aliasing is probably the best thing to do.
Illustrator uses vector graphics, which, by nature, are anti-aliased, so it is very possible that those graphics are also using sub-pixel rendering.
The display sounds normal to me, the user just isn't used to the way an LCD looks. Adjusting the level of anti-aliasing is probably the best thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um. No. Look at the "General" Control Panel. It explicitly states "Font Smoothing Style". And if graphics on screen were anti-aliased like fonts are, then that could look really strange in many places.
Even with 3d graphics cards, AA is an OPTION that's only turned on for 3d graphics - not 2d. Its also why you can turn Quartz font smoothing in Office apps, etc..
If he's seeing blurriness in OS X (other than fonts of course), its a bad LCD.
Um. No. Look at the "General" Control Panel. It explicitly states "Font Smoothing Style". And if graphics on screen were anti-aliased like fonts are, then that could look really strange in many places.
Even with 3d graphics cards, AA is an OPTION that's only turned on for 3d graphics - not 2d. Its also why you can turn Quartz font smoothing in Office apps, etc..
If he's seeing blurriness in OS X (other than fonts of course), its a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vector graphics ARE antialiased in Quartz!!!
Here is a vector logo (part of it anyway) blown up to 200%:
Furthermore Adobe is using their own engine in their apps, and that also smoothens bitmaps when not shown in 100%.
I too have seen the weird red color around text. It most definitely is the screen Anti Aliasing setting. I have a friend at work who has his Tibook set to best for LCD's, but it drives me nuts cuz I see colors around the text all the time. He doesn't notice it at all, so it totally depends on the person. I have my display set to Standard - Best for CRT and it looks gorgeous. No color around the text at all. I'd try that setting before running it off to an Apple Store.
<strong>I new people would think I was wrong. It is set on the default (highest) resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you mean by "highest resolution" that you have it set at 1680 x 1050 pixels? If you do not have set at 1680 x 1050 pixels then there's your problem. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
It's size is relative to whatever you set it at. It's simply a mathmatical formula that says "put blue pixals in a circle, radius=n) or whatever....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, when you design for a real world purpose (which almost all apps cater for) then the vectors have to map to a real world size or else you wouldn't know how much would fit on A4 etc. Even if this is not the case there has to be some nominal size defined as 100% with 200% being the mathmatical formula with all values doubled.
Also, it doesn't matter what size (50%, 100%, 200%) vectors are presented at, in this day and age the app will always anti-alias for the screen as it will look better.
You are correct, though off-track, when you say "You don't get pixalation until you rasterize it."
And so when you display a vector on a raster device like a computer monitor, or printer you will get pixalisation (with or without anti-aliasing).
It's interesting that the original poster is complaining that his display isn't 'sharp' enough when it seems quite likely that the problem is the 'sharper' display of the LCD revealing details (including AA and sub-pixel rendering artifacts) that went unnoticed on the CRT screen.
It's interesting that the original poster hasn't been back here since he started this thread. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
It has been rasterized. You have defined that graphic's dimensions, and when you enlarged it in ImageReady, it doubled the size of the bitmap image, not the vector equation.
Stupider...
in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.
Sure, if you zoom in 200% on your screen, it's going to appear that way because it has to be represented as a bitmap image, since your screen happens to be made of pixals!
It has been rasterized. You have defined that graphic's dimensions, and when you enlarged it in ImageReady, it doubled the size of the bitmap image, not the vector equation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, so that the people reading this thread could better see the subpixel rendering that Quartz does when rasterizing vectors for screen display. All he did was increase the size of the logical pixels from the physical pixels, to take advantage of the fact that Quartz renders to logical, rather than physical, pixels (see OS X's zoom capabilities). Doubling the sizes of the vectors themselves would have been pointless, because it wouldn't make the pixels any easier to see.
Hint: Quartz draws fonts as vectors. That's how it's able to antialias them in the first place.
[quote]<strong>in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of this is true trivially, but none of it is relevant to the JLL's point, which concerns the fact that when Quartz rasterizes a vector for display on screen, it uses subpixel rendering to do so, and the result appears antialiased on screen.
in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.
Sure, if you zoom in 200% on your screen, it's going to appear that way because it has to be represented as a bitmap image, since your screen happens to be made of pixals!</strong><hr></blockquote>
If a vector program shows circle A at 100% as different from circle B at 200% zoom (where the radius and line thickness of B are half that of A) then the program is broken. Math tells us that these must be the same.
You can check any vector app, such as sodipodi available from fink, and see that they have a % zoom the same as standard raster image apps, preview etc.
JLL has confused matters slightly by blowing up to 200% a raster image created from a vector (at 100%) to make it easier to see the anti-aliasing.
But that made sense in terms of what he was trying to do, which was correct someones confusion about Quartz's use of anti-aliasing and sub-pixel font rendering.
I think in your first post you are referring to his image but what you say doesn't apply to vector images in general.
Your second paragraph in this post doesn't make sense to me whether I interpret 'zoom' to mean in a raster app with an image exported from a vector app, in a vector app alone or even using a camera to photograph the screen.
In particular the pixels don't do anything at 200% that they weren't doing at 100%.
To sum up, I think the confusion arise because computer people are using a few bits of jargon to refer to different things. To restate my original point in a clearer way:
Vectors are resolution-independant but that doesn't mean they don't have an inherent size that they retain no matter what size or resolution they are displayed at. It therefore does make sense to refer to vectors as being at 50% or 200%.
Comments
the 20" should be set to 1680 x 1050 pixels.
if it's not, that's your problem.
<strong>
Yes, but font smoothing would NOT be happening on lines drawn in illustrator or even the normal OS. Its only applied to text. OS X does smoothing of text, but in no way does smoothing of graphic objects.
You've got a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Quartz does smoothing of graphics objects. I agree though, it's probably a lemon.
<strong>
Well, Quartz does smoothing of graphics objects. I agree though, it's probably a lemon.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Illustrator's own engine also smoothens objects (Illustrator doesn't use Quartz).
<strong>
Yes, but font smoothing would NOT be happening on lines drawn in illustrator or even the normal OS. Its only applied to text. OS X does smoothing of text, but in no way does smoothing of graphic objects.
You've got a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Illustrator uses vector graphics, which, by nature, are anti-aliased, so it is very possible that those graphics are also using sub-pixel rendering.
The display sounds normal to me, the user just isn't used to the way an LCD looks. Adjusting the level of anti-aliasing is probably the best thing to do.
The 20" is sharp as a tack, colorful, bright and smooth (they have three on display).
So I bought one.
Also, for those who are on the fence like I was, the 20" is the better display, IMHO.
Also, how are your eyes? if i get too drunk i see blurry, as well as if I don't wear my glasses.
just kidding about that, all of it, i feel like you probably aren't a moron, so just ignore my post.
<strong>
Illustrator uses vector graphics, which, by nature, are anti-aliased, so it is very possible that those graphics are also using sub-pixel rendering.
The display sounds normal to me, the user just isn't used to the way an LCD looks. Adjusting the level of anti-aliasing is probably the best thing to do.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Um. No. Look at the "General" Control Panel. It explicitly states "Font Smoothing Style". And if graphics on screen were anti-aliased like fonts are, then that could look really strange in many places.
Even with 3d graphics cards, AA is an OPTION that's only turned on for 3d graphics - not 2d. Its also why you can turn Quartz font smoothing in Office apps, etc..
If he's seeing blurriness in OS X (other than fonts of course), its a bad LCD.
<strong>
Um. No. Look at the "General" Control Panel. It explicitly states "Font Smoothing Style". And if graphics on screen were anti-aliased like fonts are, then that could look really strange in many places.
Even with 3d graphics cards, AA is an OPTION that's only turned on for 3d graphics - not 2d. Its also why you can turn Quartz font smoothing in Office apps, etc..
If he's seeing blurriness in OS X (other than fonts of course), its a bad LCD.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Vector graphics ARE antialiased in Quartz!!!
Here is a vector logo (part of it anyway) blown up to 200%:
Furthermore Adobe is using their own engine in their apps, and that also smoothens bitmaps when not shown in 100%.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
Matt
by definition, a vector image has no "200%"
It's size is relative to whatever you set it at. It's simply a mathmatical formula that says "put blue pixals in a circle, radius=n) or whatever....
You don't get pixalation until you rasterize it.
<strong>I new people would think I was wrong. It is set on the default (highest) resolution.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you mean by "highest resolution" that you have it set at 1680 x 1050 pixels? If you do not have set at 1680 x 1050 pixels then there's your problem. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
<strong>JLL,
by definition, a vector image has no "200%"
It's size is relative to whatever you set it at. It's simply a mathmatical formula that says "put blue pixals in a circle, radius=n) or whatever....
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, when you design for a real world purpose (which almost all apps cater for) then the vectors have to map to a real world size or else you wouldn't know how much would fit on A4 etc. Even if this is not the case there has to be some nominal size defined as 100% with 200% being the mathmatical formula with all values doubled.
Also, it doesn't matter what size (50%, 100%, 200%) vectors are presented at, in this day and age the app will always anti-alias for the screen as it will look better.
You are correct, though off-track, when you say "You don't get pixalation until you rasterize it."
And so when you display a vector on a raster device like a computer monitor, or printer you will get pixalisation (with or without anti-aliasing).
that or he's been really, really busy.
<strong>JLL,
by definition, a vector image has no "200%"
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It is a screenshot of a vector logo enlarged to 200% in ImageReady to show the antialiasing!!!
[ 02-03-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
It has been rasterized. You have defined that graphic's dimensions, and when you enlarged it in ImageReady, it doubled the size of the bitmap image, not the vector equation.
Stupider...
in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.
Sure, if you zoom in 200% on your screen, it's going to appear that way because it has to be represented as a bitmap image, since your screen happens to be made of pixals!
<strong>JLL,
It has been rasterized. You have defined that graphic's dimensions, and when you enlarged it in ImageReady, it doubled the size of the bitmap image, not the vector equation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, so that the people reading this thread could better see the subpixel rendering that Quartz does when rasterizing vectors for screen display. All he did was increase the size of the logical pixels from the physical pixels, to take advantage of the fact that Quartz renders to logical, rather than physical, pixels (see OS X's zoom capabilities). Doubling the sizes of the vectors themselves would have been pointless, because it wouldn't make the pixels any easier to see.
Hint: Quartz draws fonts as vectors. That's how it's able to antialias them in the first place.
[quote]<strong>in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All of this is true trivially, but none of it is relevant to the JLL's point, which concerns the fact that when Quartz rasterizes a vector for display on screen, it uses subpixel rendering to do so, and the result appears antialiased on screen.
<strong>
Stupider...
in the real world, when you enter values into a vector, it becomes a part of an equation. Is a circle with a radius of 100pixals 200% of one with one of the radius 200pixals? Yes, but it's not the same as zooming in 200% on the image.
Sure, if you zoom in 200% on your screen, it's going to appear that way because it has to be represented as a bitmap image, since your screen happens to be made of pixals!</strong><hr></blockquote>
If a vector program shows circle A at 100% as different from circle B at 200% zoom (where the radius and line thickness of B are half that of A) then the program is broken. Math tells us that these must be the same.
You can check any vector app, such as sodipodi available from fink, and see that they have a % zoom the same as standard raster image apps, preview etc.
JLL has confused matters slightly by blowing up to 200% a raster image created from a vector (at 100%) to make it easier to see the anti-aliasing.
But that made sense in terms of what he was trying to do, which was correct someones confusion about Quartz's use of anti-aliasing and sub-pixel font rendering.
I think in your first post you are referring to his image but what you say doesn't apply to vector images in general.
Your second paragraph in this post doesn't make sense to me whether I interpret 'zoom' to mean in a raster app with an image exported from a vector app, in a vector app alone or even using a camera to photograph the screen.
In particular the pixels don't do anything at 200% that they weren't doing at 100%.
To sum up, I think the confusion arise because computer people are using a few bits of jargon to refer to different things. To restate my original point in a clearer way:
Vectors are resolution-independant but that doesn't mean they don't have an inherent size that they retain no matter what size or resolution they are displayed at. It therefore does make sense to refer to vectors as being at 50% or 200%.